When I applied to adopt, I was told that adoption of older childrencould
involve food issues, that the kids might test me by eatingnothing to see if
I cared, or eating everything to see what I would dowhen there was no food
left in the house. Even so, I was awed at howit played out with John and
Judy.

They arrived at 1 on Friday afternoon, December 18, 1981, for
theirfirst home visit. I had stocked up--enough food, I thought, for
aweek. They'd have lots of choices in their weekend stay. By
noonSaturday the kids had gone through a dozen eggs, a crockpot of
chili,two boxes of cereal, two gallons of milk, a hand of bananas, a
dozenapples, a batch of chocolate chip cookies, three loaves of bread,
abeef roast, mashed potatoes.... well, you get the picture. That's whenI
passed the test--I bundled them in the car and we went to the grocerystore.
The food insecurity didn't go away after the adoption--until hemoved away
when he was 19, John squirreled food away--I'd find platesand bowls of
desiccated or moldy food tucked away under the bed and inthe closet. He
never got over the fear that there wouldn't be enough,that the next meal
might not be there.

The insecure poor--Jesus' primary audience. And what
does he tellthem? "Enough worrying about tomorrow!"

And then there
are the folks who gather more than they could ever use.My maternal
grandparents went through the Depression, and they neverforgot. Whenever
there was a sale, they'd buy some. They had enoughtoilet paper to stock the
whole Seagate Center. It could have beenotherwise, but their economy has
proved to be a blessing: they taughttheir children and grandchildren the
virtues of frugality andstewardship coupled with help for their neighbors in
need. Othershaven't been so blessed--experiences of deprivation can also
plantseeds of various types of hoarding. The signs of it are
prettyobvious when you travel down I-75 and see the rows of storage
unitsfor rent by those whose "stuff" no longer fits in their house
andgarage.

They're the "insecure rich"--another of Jesus' primary
audiences. Likethe insecure poor, they are also afraid they won't have
enough--notenough vacations, not a big enough house, not a new enough car,
notenough clothes of the right label, not enough of those adult
"toys."

Most of us don't go to those extremes, but fear can motivate us
insubtle ways. I find TV ads instructive about being "good
enough."Corporations spend billions on research to find out what will
convinceus to buy their products. I see ads that tell me I'm not
importantenough, or "in" enough, or up-to-date enough, unless I buy a
certainbrand. I see ads that tell me I won't have a good enough time if
Idon't buy a particular food or drink. I see ads that suggest thattheir
company is like a person, so I'll be cared about enough if I buytheir
product. They all are about spending money to get somethingthat will make me
a whole person, a person who has enough.

Sometimes it's about a job.
Harry Randall Truman, who ran a lodge onMount Saint Helens, ignored the
warnings that it was about to erupt.He made national news when he said, "If
this place is gonna go, I wantto go with it, 'cause if I lost it, it would
kill me in a weekanyway." Jesus said not to worry about our livelihood, but
Harrymade an idol out of his workplace. He died in his lodge when
thevolcano erupted in May 1980. Jesus said to trust in God's love and
beconfident that it's going to be okay. Relax. Share. Give away
theextras. Welcome folks--so no "stand your ground," no
"concealedcarry."

Wordsworth wrote a poem back in 1806,
saying:The world is too much with us; late and soon,Getting and
spending, we lay waste our powers.Yes, we use our lives--our powers--getting
and spending.

Pope Francis tells us that we idolize money. He asks, "How
can it bethat it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies
ofexposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"He
says we don't care bout people; we only care about getting andspending. The
values of our culture are indeed skewed.

Here at Holy Spirit we are
counter-cultural. I see a generous,loving, welcoming community. People hang
around and enjoy talkingwith one another after Masses. I run into you here
and there aroundtown, doing good. When I'm out and about, someone will
inevitablycome up to me and tell me about something you did or said or gave
thatmade a difference.

We're about to step onto the porch of Lent,
and the Gospel today tellsus not to worry about our livelihood, what we are
to eat or drink oruse for clothes. Seek God, and God's justice, we're told.
Everythingelse will be taken care of.

One of the ways to approach our
Lenten practices would be to look forany insecurities in our lives and shape
a six-week exercise to learntrust. We could end up in a Holy Week of
security in God's reign,finding security in doing God's justice.

I haven’t
joined the conversation yet because a close friend passed away this week and my
mind has been mostly . . . there. However, I note the wisdom and
the pain in many of the recent emails and wish to offer my thoughts.

I agree
that we need to firmly distinguish between being disciples of Jesus’ Way of
thinking and living, and the institutional/organized ‘Roman Catholic
Church’. The second only exists to serve the first.

Jesus
also lived in a system and time of primitive institutional thinking.
He saw how this hurt people; his way freed them from the limitations of
that system. He lived and died a Jew; he never left the system
--- though he was killed anyway because the Jewish leadership was
so threatened by the freedom of his teaching that they convinced Roman system
that he was an insurrectionist --- someone trying to overthrow the
system. In some way, they saw correctly that his inner freedom
based on living an authentic life of truth, love, justice, forgiveness,
connectedness, etc. would either overcome or make irrelevant their system of
external power and status. They had to get rid of him; they
thought they did.

Really,
what has changed in 2,000 years? Another religious system that
sometimes tries and often fails to support our discipleship, the truth of who we
and others are – how is this different? Systems, as developed up
until now, create rituals, levels of authority, rules, status for a few ---
regardless of intent, that’s what they are and do. Someday this
may evolve, who knows – but either way, Jesus taught that they need not control
who we are, how we lead our lives, or our inner peace.

It’s
possible that if we are living our truth in a time when an institution has great
‘worldly’ power, we can be hurt, punished, killed. It’s possible
that we may be living our truth in a time where there is a ‘critical moment’ and
we need to throw our support, or even our leadership to effecting
change. But mostly, we simply need to figure out a way to live
our truth while not being controlled by the institution; essentially, ‘working
around’ it, participating in it, leaving it, whatever. Treating
it as what it should be: a support, not the ultimate
reality.

That
‘working around’ should include the recognition that hostility on our part
toward the institution is . . . our issue to resolve.
And we must resolve it because Jesus taught that hostility
is not a good fit with his interior freedom; hence the ‘forgive your enemy’
thing.

I would
go further: someone once said that “anger is like juice in an
orange --- it only leaks out when the orange is cut, but it’s always been
there.” Anger is often our response to perceived threat --- yet
with Jesus as the model, no exterior threat is ‘real’ (including being
crucified) -- we need to seriously evaluate our perception of threat.
There are a number of spiritual guides that effectively tackle this, from
A Course in Miracles to Richard Rohr --- but let’s just note here
that the people we admire – the spiritual masters who’ve effected positive
change in this world – tend to have one thing in common: they have
resolved their anger and hostility issues; they come from a place of peace and
love for everyone – even their oppressors. Only then do they have
the freedom to act if/when the opportunity is right.

And, if
we nurse or think or act out of inner hostility, how are we different from all
those who are hostile toward ____ (fill in the blank: infidels/ progressives/
liberals/conservatives/Obamacare/Unions/this or that tribe in Afganistan or
Africa)? All those who harbor hostility have two things in common:
they know they are ‘right’ in their thinking and that others are ‘wrong’, and
they think their hostility is somehow part of their goodness.
Neither is true: one thinking may be more advanced/evolved
at this point than another but it will be someday become primitive at some point
in the future; hostility (per Jesus) is never part of goodness and
truth.

So,
regarding the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, we can be ‘systemically
free’. We can affirm when Pope Frances teaches something that
moves the world forward while being patient when his teaching is trapped in
primitive thinking. We can accept RCC theology that is rational
and resonates as truth, or choose other more advanced theological models that
better reflect our increased understanding of the world.
If the RCC blocks our living of our ‘calling’ in a
particular way, we can find other ways (in and/or outside the institution) to
live that calling. If discriminated against because of our race
(past), theology or sexual orientation (both present), we can find ways to live
our reality within the institution (or outside it) while we consistently speak
our understanding of truth. We can participate in the RCC rituals
that build discipleship for us, or create new ritual forms that provide greater
support. I know all our hearts ache
for those still suffering from the effects of the sexual abuse; they may never
be free of the pain inflicted on them as children and we can only offer them special care,
healing opportunities, never allowing their experience to be swept under the
rug, etc. The rest of us --- time to move on, folks!

We can
celebrate living in a time when communication and technology make great change
possible, while still being at peace with more primitive thinking, the chaos of
change, and the tendency for those not ready for change to deeply entrench the
most regressive ideas of the past.

But most
and above all – we must be guided by Beatitude orientation of love and
forgiveness; taking care of each other; using our gifts for all because we are
ultimately one reality (OK, that last is a concept from other religious
traditions but relates to our ‘Body of Christ’ wisdom). Only this
brings peace. Only this will put us in the best position to offer
our support or leadership for effective change because it allows us to develop
into a unique expression of God. Nothing else matters -- certainly
not the current state of the institutional RCC!

Here we might apply a favorite metaphor of Pope Francis: those carrying on the ministry would function in a way like doctors in a field hospital. They would proceed from a genuine desire to understand the personal and spiritual aspirations of the persons in their care instead of simply repeating the equivalent of a fatal diagnosis, which is how repeated reliance on the notion of “intrinsic evil” will likely be perceived. This is not a proposal for adjudicating the numerous issues now under dispute, nor is it a theological program for resolving the problems of implementing change in this troubled area of the church’s theology and practice. But it may serve as a partial model for addressing similar problems in areas where Catholic Christians have been putting more energy into denunciation than into dialogue, where disjunctions and fractures have been growing in scale and lethality. Perhaps it is best conceived as a submission for the notice board in the field hospital.

John Langan, S.J., is the Joseph Cardinal Bernardin Professor of Catholic Social Thought at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Friday, February 28, 2014

"Gutierrez, 85, spoke at the event for about 20-minutes in Italian mixed with Spanish words, reflecting on the parable of the Good Samaritan, saying the story reflected the need of the church in our time to go outside of itself, to make neighbors, and to always be at the service of the poor. (The full text of his talk is available here.)

"Our neighbor is a person who is not close to us," said Gutierrez. "It is not the person next to us. The neighbor is not the person that we find on our way, but that person that we approach to the extent we leave our own way, our own path, managing to approach others."

Referencing Pope Francis' recent apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium ("The joy of the Gospel"), Gutierrez said the church needed to move "outside of itself" to make neighbors and serve the poor.

"There's a big temptation to remain in one place but this is not the need, what the Gospel expects from us," he said. "A Samaritan church is an open church, a church attentive to human needs."

“Your respectful servant” is how Michael, 65, a Vietnam vet from Washington, D.C., signed his.

“With hope for the coming justice” is how Greg, 58, a house painter from Duluth, Minn., signed his.

All three were career protesters who among them had served close to a decade in jail for other actions, so none of them flinched when they heard their punishment: The judge sentenced the two men to five years and two months and the sister got two years and 11 months, with credit for the nine months served, for intending to endanger the national defense and destroying more than $1,000 in government property. They also were ordered to pay $52,953 in restitution to the government.

Before the sentencing, Sister Megan had comforted family members visiting in jail by saying she had “been away” for long periods of time before, when she ministered in Africa for decades. Michael looked forward to reading an “indictment” of the United States into the official record. Greg wasn’t precisely sure what he would say in court, though Mark 13:11 has been on his mind.

Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit...." /click on link to read entire article.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Elizabeth Johnson cites Brazilian Theologians Ivone Gebara and Maria Clara Bingemer's whose interpretation of the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption provide a "liberating impulse and can be made to work as allies in the struggle for life. For the Immaculata venerated on our altars is the poor Mary of Nazareth, insignificant in the social structure of her time. This Mother of the People bears within herself the confirmation of God's preference for the humblest, the littlest, the most oppressed. The so-called Marian privilege is really the privilege of the poor. Similarly, believing in Mary's Assumption means proclaiming that the woman who gave birth in a stable among animals, who shared a life of poverty, who stood at the foot of the cross as the mother of the condemned has been exalted. The Assumption is the glorious culmination of the mystery of God's preference for what is poor, small, and unprotected in this world. It sparks hope in the poor and those who stand in solidarity with them 'that they will share in the final victory of the incarnate God.' To understand these doctrines aright, we cannot forget that they talk of God exalting a woman who lived in poverty and anonymity. As Mary sang in the Magnificat, they reveal the ways of God whose light shines on what is regarded as insignificant and marginal." Ivone Gebera and Maria Clara Bingemer, Mary Mother of God, Mother of the Poor, 113,120-1cited in Elizabeth Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 149As we address issues of women's empowerment in the church and world including women priests, we can take heart that Mary of Nazareth is our beloved sister and companion on the journey toward justice rising up from the margins. Yes, women are the face of God. Our bodies are holy and we are called to stand around the altar with our brothers and sisters and celebrate God's extravagant love for all at the Banquet Table. The hierarchy cannot continue to discriminate against women and blame God for it because God is on the side of the marginalized and oppressed in our world and church. Bridget Mary Meehan, ARCWP, www.arcwp.org

"...Gutierrez, 85, received a round of applause when the Vatican spokesman noted his presence Tuesday and another round when he approached the podium to speak about the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio has had a complicated relationship with liberation theology, clashing with left-leaning members of his Jesuit order who took up its politicized call to confront Argentina's violent military dictatorship in the 1970s.

Nevertheless, Francis fully embraces its call for the church to have a "preferential option for the poor."

The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has been on a rehabilitation campaign of sorts, saying that with the first Latin American pope, liberation theology can no longer "remain in the shadows to which it has been relegated for some years, at least in Europe."

..."The very idea that just four percent of the population and a well-financed special interest group can create a law this extreme entirely on their own should scare the hell out of all of us, because now that this Pandora's Box has been opened, we're left to wonder what worse may be coming from it next.

Whether my Republican colleagues lacked the backbones, consciences, or both, to stop it, this proposal and the entire process behind it are an utter insult to Michigan women and our entire voting population. It tells women that we have to guess at whether we will have a complicated pregnancy or whether we or our daughters will be the victims of rape or incest. It tells 96 percent of the population that their voice simply doesn't matter. And it is tells the people of Michigan that their government isn't being run by those we elect to office, but rather by the special interest groups who fund their campaigns.

Sharing my story publicly may not have stopped this law from being passed, but as their goal was to silence women's voices in this debate, my hope is that it will instead encourage more women to speak out and stand up against these continued attacks on our rights and our health.

The outpouring of opposition to this new law from both Democrats and Republicans alike has made it clear that we can ultimately succeed in repealing it. That effort, and this fight, has only just begun."

By Jerry Slevin , a retired Catholic and Harvard "schooled" international lawyer

The clergy abuse survivors of Australia and the rule of law have scored a major victory. Cardinal Pell has been induced to take a Vatican desk job apparently to avoid the unrelenting and escalating pressure from the Australian Royal Commission’s investigation into institutional child sexual abuse. The pressure was increased by the testimony of a sacked Aussie bishop who described the Vatican’s interference in local abuse scandals as reported here http://www.mydailynews.com.au/news/catholic-church-silence-former-bishop/2179216/The Royal Commission can likely still reach Pell in due course, if and when it wants to.

The Vatican’s apologists, of course, have tried to spin this as a “promotion”, but this fantasy fools few. Australia’s top Catholic leader has reluctantly had to flee his beloved homeland to seek Vatican protection, as the USA’s Cardinal Law did a decade before.

Meanwhile, a Polish Archbishop, a protege of Pope John Paul II and former Nuncio to the Dominican Republic, is already crowding the Vatican’s refuge for hierarchs seeking to avoid the child abuse scandal fallout.

Address
by Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., to Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation
and Disarmament, "Climbing the Mountain" Conference, Washington, D.C., February
26, 2014At first
glance, the elimination of nuclear weapons appears to be a hopeless case. The
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva has been paralyzed for many years. The
Non-Proliferation Treaty is in crisis. The major nuclear weapons states refuse
to enter into comprehensive negotiations for nuclear disarmament and are even
boycotting international meetings designed to put world attention on the
“catastrophic humanitarian consequences” of the use of nuclear weapons. The
nuclear weapons states are giving the back of their hand to the rest of the
world. Not a cheery outlook.But look a
little deeper. Two-thirds of the nations of the world have voted for
negotiations to begin on a global legal ban on nuclear weapons. Two weeks ago,
146 nations and scores of academics and civil society activists assembled in
Nayarit, Mexico to examine the staggering health, economic, environment, food
and transportation effects of any nuclear detonation – accidental or
deliberate. A UN High-Level International Conference on nuclear disarmament
will be convened in 2018, and September 26 every year from now on will be
observed as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear
Weapons.The march of
history is moving against the possession, not only the use, of nuclear weapons
by any state. The nuclear weapons states are trying to block this march before
it acquires any more momentum. But they will fail. They can stall the nuclear
disarmament processes, but they cannot obliterate the transformation moment in
human history now occurring.The reason
that the nuclear disarmament movement is stronger than it appears on the surface
is that it stems the gradual awakening of conscience taking place in the world.
Driven forward by science and technology and a new understanding of the
inherency of human rights, an integration of humanity is occurring. Not only do
we know one another across what used to be great divides, but we also know that
we need one another for common survival. There is a new caring for the human
condition and the state of the planet evident in such programs as the Millennium
Development Goals. This is the awakening of a global conscience. This has
already produced a huge advance for humanity:the growing understanding in the
public that war is futile. The rationale and appetite for war are disappearing.
That would have seemed impossible in the 20th century, let alone the 19th. The
public rejection of war as a means of resolving conflict – seen most recently in
the question of military intervention in Syria – has enormous ramifications for
how society will conduct its affairs. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is
undergoing new analyses, including the threat posed by the possession of nuclear
weapons, to determine the circumstances when it can be properly used to save
lives.I am not
predicting global harmony. The tentacles of the military-industrial complex are
still strong. Too much political leadership is pusillanimous. Local crises have
a way of becoming catastrophic. The future cannot be predicted. We have lost
opportunities before, notably the singular moment when the Berlin Wall fell and
the Cold War ended, that prescient leaders would have seized on and begun to
build the structures for a new world order. But I am saying that the world,
soured on the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, has finally righted itself and is on
course to make inter-state wars a relic of the past.Two factors
are producing better prospects for world peace: accountability and prevention.
We never used to hear much about governments accounting to publics for their
actions on the great questions of war and peace. Now, with the spread of human
rights, empowered civil society activists are holding their governments
accountable for participation in the global strategies for human development.
These global strategies, apparent in diverse fields, from genocide prevention to
the involvement of women in mediation projects, foster the prevention of
conflict.This higher
level of thinking is bringing a new potency to the nuclear disarmament debate.
Increasingly, nuclear weapons are seen not as instruments of state security but
as violators of human security. More and more, it is becoming apparent that
nuclear weapons and human rights cannot co-exist on the planet. But governments
are slow to adopt policies based on the new understanding of the requirements
for human security. Thus, we are still living in a two-class world in which the
powerful aggrandize unto themselves nuclear weapons while proscribing their
acquisition by other states. We face the danger of the proliferation of nuclear
weapons because the powerful nuclear states refuse to use their authority to
build a specific law outlawing all nuclear weapons, and continue to diminish the
1996 conclusion of the International Court of Justice that the threat or use of
nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that all states have a duty to
negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons.This thinking
is feeding a movement now building up across the world to commence a diplomatic
process for nuclear weapons abolition even without the immediate cooperation of
the nuclear powers. The Nayarit conference and its follow-up meeting in Vienna
later this year, provide and impetus to commence such a process.. Governments
seeking comprehensive negotiations for a global legal ban on nuclear weapons
must now choose between starting a diplomatic process to outlaw nuclear weapons
without the participation of the nuclear weapons states or constrain their
ambitions by working solely within the confines of the NPT and the Conference on
Disarmament where the nuclear weapons states are a constant debilitating
influence.My experience
leads me to choose starting a process in which like-minded states begin
preparatory work with the specific intention of building a global law. This
means identifying the legal, technical, political and institutional requisites
for a nuclear weapons free world as the basis for negotiating a legal ban on
nuclear weapons.It will undoubtedly be a long process, but the alternative, a
step-by-step process, will continue to be foiled by the powerful states, which
have connived to block any meaningful progress since the NPT came into force in
1970. I urge parliamentarians to use their access to power and introduce in
every Parliament in the world a resolution calling for immediate work to begin
on a global framework to prohibit the production, testing, possession and use of
nuclear weapons by all states, and provide for their elimination under effective
verification.Advocacy by
parliamentarians works. Parliamentarians are well placed not only to lobby for
new initiatives but to follow through on their implementation. They are uniquely
placed to challenge present policies, present alternatives and generally hold
governments accountable. Parliamentarians hold more power than they often
realize.In my early
years in the Canadian parliament, when I served as chairman of Parliamentarians
for Global Action, I led delegations of parliamentarians to Moscow and
Washington to plead with the superpowers of the day to take serious steps toward
nuclear disarmament. Our work led to the formation of the Six-Nation
Initiative. This was a cooperative effort by the leaders of India, Mexico,
Argentina, Sweden, Greece and Tanzania, who held summit meetings urging the
nuclear powers to halt production of their nuclear stocks. Gorbachev later said
the Six-Nation Initiative was a key factor in the achievement of the 1987
Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminated a whole class of
medium-range nuclear missiles.Parliamentarians
for Global Action developed into a network of 1,000 parliamentarians in 130
countries and branched out on an expanded list of global issues, such as
fostering democracy, conflict prevention and management, international law and
human rights, population, and environment. The organization was responsible for
getting the negotiations started for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and
supplied the muscle to get many governments to sign onto the International
Criminal Court and the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty.In latter
years, a new association of legislators, Parliamentarians for Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, has been formed and I am proud to have been
its first Chairman. I congratulate Senator Ed Markey for assembling in
Washington today this important gathering of legislators. Under the leadership
of Alyn Ware, PNNDhas attracted about 800 legislators in 56 countries. It
collaborated with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a huge umbrella group of
parliaments in 162 countries, in producing a handbook for parliamentarians
explaining the non-proliferation and disarmament issues. This is a form of
leadership that doesn’t make headlines but is extremely effective. The
development of associations like Parliamentarians for Global Action and
Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament is contributing
significantly to expanded political leadership.The voice of
parliamentarians may in the future become stronger if the Campaign for a United
Nations Parliamentary Assembly takes hold. The campaign hopes that some day
citizens of all countries would be able to directly elect their representatives
to sit in a new assembly at the UN and legislate global policies. This may not
happen until we reach another stage of history, but a transitional step could be
the selection of delegates from national parliaments, who would be empowered to
sit in a new assembly at the UN and raise issues directly with the Security
Council. The European Parliament, in which direct election of its 766 members
takes place in the constituent countries, offers a precedent for a global
parliamentary assembly.Even without
waiting for future developments to enhance global governance, parliamentarians
today can and must use their unique position in government structures to push
for humanitarian policies to protect life on earth. Close the rich-poor gap.
Stop global warming. No more nuclear weapons. That is the stuff of political
leadership.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Afghanistan:
President Karzai blocks law protecting perpetrators of domestic violence

Afghan women take part in a
demonstration to protest violence against women in Kabul on February 13,
2014.

“This is an important step against retrograde legislation that would have let rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence off the hook,” said Horia Mosadiq, Afghanistan Researcher at Amnesty International. “This draft code would have taken Afghanistan back decades in terms of discrimination of women and girls in the country. President Karzai has taken a crucial step by refusing to sign the amended code. Meanwhile he must ensure that victims of domestic violence, rape and other crimes have a viable path to justice, including by putting in place witness protection programmes.”

..." I believe God is calling women to the RC priesthood. I think this is something the RC church needs in its quest to heal from the sex abuse crisis.

There already are 180 Roman Catholic women priests ordained worldwide. The people of God will determine if the priesthood in the RC tradition does extend to women. A group of us have founded an inclusive, egalitarian community in the RC tradition here in Greenville. If you would like to learn more about the women’s priest movement, please go to arcwp.org. Click “About Us” to view our biographies. Mine is sixth one on the right hand column. My contact information is included."